Throughout history, the military draft has been implemented with varying degrees of public scrutiny and outcry. First established in 1863 to shore up support for the Civil War (a move that resulted in heavy rioting), the Selective Service had inducted nearly 3 million men between the ages of 21 and 30 by the end of World War I. By the end of 1947, more than 10 million men had been drafted into service, according to the Columbia University Press.
When the Korean War began in 1951, the minimum drafting age was reduced to 18.5 years old, and exemptions and educational deferments started discriminating against working-class men. But it was not until the Vietnam War debacle and escalating public awareness about the inequities of the draft that it became a major social issue for the first time since the Civil War. Public outrage over the senseless killing of American lives mushroomed into public uproar, mostly conducted at the doorsteps of draft boards and induction centers.
Meanwhile, men fled the country or exploited technicalities by the thousands to dodge the draft, and in 1973 the 150-year-old mandatory “patriotism” was abolished, leaving the nation with volunteer-only armed services.
It seemed, finally, that the worst-case scenario of such a policy — that tens of thousands of draftees would die fighting a war many failed to understand — had mushroomed into a political change for the better.
That changed, however, in 1980 when Congress once again reinstituted mandatory registration for the draft, ruling that it would only be used if needed. Now, with the escalating situation in Iraq, which some critics label the new Vietnam, rumors have circulated about renewed efforts in Congress to do just that.
And while those rumors are true, the chances of a draft actually happening are slim to none.
Two bills are currently alive in Congress — Senate Bill 84 and House Bill 163 — that would institute the Universal National Service Act of 2003. The act states, in part, that “it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.” The bills also amend the Military Selective Service Act to allow females to be drafted.
The problem with worrying about such legislation is simply that both bills suffer a serious lack of support from Congress and the general public. The Senate version, introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., in 2003, lacks any co-sponsors and has been lingering in the Committee on Armed Services for more than a year. The House version, meanwhile, has accumulated 13 co-sponsors, but has also been stalled in the House Armed Services Committee for more than a year. Currently, the bill is sitting in the Subcommittee on Total Force and awaiting Executive comment from the Department of Defense.
To give some perspective on the kind of pressing political matters that the Subcommittee on Total Force deals with, and thus how seriously the House takes the bill, the subcommittee is also considering a resolution that would express “the sense of the Congress that Harriet Tubman should have been paid a pension for her service as a nurse and scout in the United States Army during the Civil War.”
But we digress. The point is this: The draft is a bad idea just like involuntary servitude is a bad idea. The notion that simply being a citizen in the United States means you owe something to the government is philosophically dubious. Being forced to fight in a war you might not agree with is downright undemocratic.
The Vietnam War brought out the worst in the draft, and it isn’t likely that society will forget that minor detail very quickly. So don’t go packing the bags for Canada yet; as of now all the hoopla is purely hype.